Is FX2 still the highest acutance developer available?

[andy_evans]

The Film Developing Cookbook lists it as "engraving-like gradation" ie biting grain, very high

apparent sharpness.

 

But I read through some posts here and no one mentioned these characteristics.

 

Thanks!

Andy

[lowell_huff1]

No! you should try Clayton F 76 plus Film Developer

[randall ellis]

I use FX-1 from time to time, and you can get some amazing results, but it's not really for every situation. FX-2 is supposed to be somewhat less in that regard than FX-1, but I've never used it - Pinacyptol Yellow being about as rare as hens teeth these days...

 

- Randy

[kaiyen]

Lowell, that was a terrible promoting of your own product. Even you are usually a bit more diplomatic than that...

 

I have just recently tried Pyrocat HD but haven't had a chance to do some strong comparisons with lesser acutance devs yet. I have not tried FX2 but have wanted to for a while. Sorry I cannot be of help.

[lowell_huff1]

Allan lets not be so serious and have some fun. Mr. Evans asked a very simple question so i answered it, simply. Do you think I misrepresent the product?

[spanky]

Well, Clayton F76+ is a fantastic developer...it's all I use for Delta 3200. However, it is labeled as a fine grain developer which is to say it cannot be a high acutance developer as well since acutance developers as a general rule sharpen grain (thereby making it appear more prominent in the print) as opposed to fine grain developers which soften the grain.

Nevertheless, I've printed some stunning 16x20s from 6x7 negs souped in Clayton F76+ that still managed to hold in a surprising amount of fine detail.

 

As to FX2 - can't help you there, I use Rodinal for my slow and medium films. The more dilute the Rodinal, the greater the acutance they say, but I stick to 1+50.

[lex_jenkins]

If you can find some (or mix it yourself) Neofin Blue is an excellent acutance developer for slower films, around ISO 100. Neofin Red is supposed to be better suited to faster films but I haven't tried that combination.

 

Here's an example of Efke R100 in Neofin Blue:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1710632

 

That's a scan from an 18"x18" print from 6x6cm R100 negative.

[Alan Johnson]

Here's a comparison of stand development of Tri-X in FX-2 and Pyrocat HD 1:1:200:<div></div>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

Beutler type, or Rodinal in the higher dilutions.

 

Indeed for the first one Neofin Blau / Blue (Tetenal) or AM50 (Amaloco).

Neofin Rot / Red is already a lot of years out of production.

[rg nelson]

Hey Randall FYI , I just bought pinacryptol yellow from Photographers' Formulary a couple weeks ago to mix up some FX-2.

[jtk]

I used Blau and Rot years ago with FP4 and HP4...loved em. I've read recently that there's effectively no difference, whether film's fast or slow. Anybody agree/disagree?

 

I used Neofins because they DIDN'T have Rodinal's edge effect...which I've subsequently sought.

[big toys are better]

Check out the Formulary TFX-2. I've used it in the past with good results (it works well with stand and semi-stand agitation methods), although Rodinal is my normal high accutance choice since it is so inexpensive, versatile and also very long-lasting in storage. Here's their promo of TFX-2, and do check out the PDF file that is also on their web site:

 

FORMULARY TFX-2 HIGH DEFINITION DEVELOPER FX-2 is an updated proprietary modification of the popular FX-2 developer. A number of small modifications have been made to gain better performance with the most modern films including the T-grain films. TFX-2 offers an extremely high degree of sharpness, which is at least as great as the Beutler developer, although somewhat less than FX-1. However, gradation with TFX-2 is much more pleasing than with either Beutler or FX-1. TFX-2 offers a speed increase between one half and one full stop and has an exceptional resistance to streaking. This is one of the most versatile film developers on the market today. By varying dilution, agitation and development time an extremely wide variety of contrast effects can easily be obtained. The stock solution will make up to 10 liters depending upon the dilution used, and has a shelf life of 1 year in a full well capped bottle. The working solution is a one shot

developer with a life of a few hours. Shipped as a liquid concentrate.

[lex_jenkins]

Alan's example image is one of the best I've seen.

 

Funny, when that kind of halo effect is seen in digital photos from oversharpening, it provokes cries of anguish. ;>

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

you might find PC-TEA interesting in that regard. it gives an interesting grain pattern to begin with (I have Neopan 400 developed normally in it with a grain almost as small as that of FP4+ plus great tones, and beautiful grain shape), although fine grain. Like Rodinal, it does not contain sulfite. Considered a true acutance full-speed (unlike rodinal) developer. The longer you develop, the sharper, the more pronounced the grain, but not much sholder - beware of highlights.

[patrick_gainer]

I think Pyrocat MC in glycol is better than the HD example. It also has no sulfite, either in stock or working solution.

 

Acutance is supposed to be the result of reduced silver halide on lesser exposed areas near areas of higher exposure. High acutance is not generally compatible with high resolution of fine details, as can be imagined by looking at the examples. It makes black lines narrower and white lines wider.

[kaiyen]

wow fx2 is some serious acutance. Thanks for the example, Alan.

 

Lowell - if you meant it in jest, then fine. But it didn't seem that way and still doesn't if I read it without regard to your later "clarification."

 

I'm about to play around with Pyrocat HD, then will with MC, then will try FX2, but only with larger film. I don't think I'd want that intense of acutance on 35mm.

[patrick_gainer]

Alan's example shows how this edge effect can reduce resolution. While FX-2 appers to sharpen edges, it also makes the white areas in the ornament larger. A photo of a resolution test target will show white lines wider than black in the print when FX-2 is used. This effect will play havoc with legibility of signs, etc., and can make autumn leaves a mish-mash. It's not desirable for most kinde of portraiture, either. Be careful to take such things into account when choosing a developer. In other words, high acutance development will not cure low resolution lens and film.

[Mike Gammill]

I looked at my Clayton F-76 bottle and noticed there are also time for 1:19 dilution in addition to the 1:9 dilution. I remember that someone (might have been Lowell) suggested I try this developer when I could not get any more Paterson FX-39. FX-39 was normally diluted 1:9 but the instructions suggested 1:14 for higher acutance, so I wonder how much acutance the F-76 could deliver at higher dilutions? I would try it myself, but I think my bottle of F-76 is too old.

[Alan Johnson]

The edge effect is exaggerated in my picture by stand development and by making a silver print dark and high contrast.

 

Edge effects is a 60's way to get sharpness.For 35mm, Adox/Efke 25 and 50 work fairly well.Higher resolution on the print comes from Adox/Efke 100 or Plus-X in medium format.Minimal agitation every 3 min with a 50% increase in time helps.The edge effect shows up better with a red filter as a slight halo in the sky round dark objects.

 

The modern way to get sharpness is to use a film like Delta 100 or T-max 100.These do not give much edge effect so FX-2 does not show the same halo.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hypercat produces VERY sharp negatives with normal development times and agitation frequencies. Hypercat is a single agent developer containing only catechol, a miniscule amount of ascorbate as a preservative, and carbonate. It is made up in two solutions; the A solution containing the catechol and ascorbate and made up in propylene glycol for indefinite shelf life, and the B solution containing the carbonate in a near-saturated, and very stable solution. Hypercat has a lot going for it, from an acutance standpoint; it is a single agent developer, so it is not regenerated during development like superadditive developers which discourage local exhaustion even in dilute solutions. Hypercat in dilute solution exhausts very quickly in the developer-hungry highlights permitting more frequent agitation which in turn promotes more even development, but it is not generally suitable for rotary processing, depending as it does on the cycle of exhaustion and replenishment provided by intermittent agitation.

Local exhaustion is responsible for the compensation and adjacency effects that result in increased acutance and film speed, but Hypercat is also a surface-acting tanning/staining developer. As the film develops, the gelatin is tanned/hardened in proportion to exposure, inhibiting the migration of the developer between regions of high and low densities for increased acutance, and inhibiting development to the depth of the emulsion reducing halation, Callier effects and the appearance of grain. Hypercat also stains the emulsion in proportion to exposure so that a portion of the printing density comes from grainless image stain, thereby significantly reducing the appearance of grain. Each of Hypercat's attributes offers a measurable advantage over standard developers, but taken together they make for a very well balanced developer that doesn't sacrifice grain, film speed or gradation for the very high acutance it produces.

I hope the above doesn't read like a sales pitch because, as far as I know, Hypercat is not for sale, though its formula is published and freely available to any and all. I do not consider Hypercat ideal for novice film processors for the following reasons:

It is a two-solution developer; the ratio of the two solutions is critical and contamination is always a risk with two-solution developers, so sloppy darkroom practices or inexperience can lead to failures.

Agitation pattern is critical; too much and compensation/adjacency effects are diminished with an accompanying loss of film speed, too little and streaking or other development defects can occur. To be fair, the range of effective agitation frequencies is wider than normal and I've only seen these kinds of defects twice in dozens of rolls/sheets, but I have seen them, so the potential exists.

Very few users and almost no development data available. Not really an issue for those who test their film developer combinations before use, but most novices do not.

 

So, if you're a careful and/or advanced film processor and are willing/able to compound your own developer and acutance is a priority, Hypercat might be worth investigating. Here's a link:

 

http://hypercatacutancedeveloper.blogspot.com/

 

Again, not a sales pitch; just sharing my experience on the subject of the thread for those interested.

 

Jay